This article has been written by Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate, Meerut.

While pooh-poohing and strongly criticizing the casual approach of the Trial Court for unquestioningly relying on the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer and proceeding to frame charges against the accused, the Single Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Neeraj Tiwari in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Sanjeev Rawat @ Teetu And Another vs State Of UP And Another in Application u/s 482 No. -42148 of 2022 and cited as Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179057 that was reserved on August 23, 2023 and then finally pronounced on September 18, 2023 minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms that, “It is apparently clear that while deciding the discharge application trial Court has not followed the settled ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court. In fact, Court blindly relying upon the charge sheet submitted by I.O. rejected the discharge application and framed charges thereafter. As discussed hereinabove, treating the allegation in FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is correct, no case is made out under Sections 386 & 389 IPC, but trial Court functioning like a post office accepted the charge sheet and treating the version true, rejected the discharge application. Thereafter proceeded to frame charges also in the same sections.” To put it differently, the Bench pulled back no punches to lambast that the Trial Court had passed the order in a very casual manner and the order suffered from a lack of application of judicial views established by the Apex Court and various other Courts. So the Allahabad High Court thus finally allowed the application partly by quashing the charges framed under Sections 386 and 389 IPC while allowing the trial to proceed further in the remaining Sections i.e., Sections 452, 504, 506 and 507 IPC.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Allahabad High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Neeraj Tiwari sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of parties, application is being decided at the admission stage itself.”

As we see, the Bench specifies in para 3 that, “Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 & 22.2.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras in Case No. 714 of 2021 (State vs. Ashok Rawat and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 358 of 2020, under Sections 389, 386, 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Hathras.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 that, “Brief facts of the case are that earlier an FIR has been lodged against the applicants on 22.10.2020, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0358 of 2020 under Sections 452, 386, 504, 506 & 507 IPC. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of informant-opposite party no.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.10.2020. Thereafter, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504 & 506 IPC. Before framing of charges, applicants have filed discharge application on 10.8.2022, which was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2022 by C.J.M., Hapur. After rejection of discharge application, learned Court has also framed charges under Sections 386, 389, 452, 504, 506 & 507 vide order dated 22.2.2023, which is also under challenged in the present application by filing amendment application. Amendment application was allowed vide order dated 12.4.2023 and same was also incorporated in the said application.”

As it turned out, the Bench observes in para 21 that, “From perusal of the aforesaid sections, it is apparently clear that for extortion, delivery is necessary part and in the present case, there is no allegation either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about delivery of any property or any other things as referred in Section 383 IPC.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 26 that, “In the present case too, there is no allegation either in the FIR or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about the delivery of any property as referred in Section 383 IPC. Undisputedly no delivery has ever taken place under fear or threat, which is necessary requirement for Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC. The very same interpretation has been made by the Apex Court in the matter of Isaac Isanga Musumba (Supra) as well as other judgments referred hereinabove. Therefore, in light of facts of the case, provisions of Section 383 read with Section 386 IPC, this Court is of the firm view that no case is made out for submission of charge sheet and framing charges under Section 386 IPC.”

Do also note that the Bench notes in para 29 that, “From perusal of Section 389 IPC, it is apparently clear that there must have been fear of accusation of offence to commit extortion, but from perusal of FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation like this in the present case.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 31 that, “From perusal of FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no allegation of accusation of offence. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, provision of Section 389 IPC as well as interpretation made by the Gujarat High Court, this Court is of firm view that in lack of fear of accusation of offence, neither charge sheet can be submitted under Section 389 IPC nor charges can be framed therein.”

It is worth noting that the Bench then notes in para 32 that, “Now coming to the point about the submission of charge sheet under Sections 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC and framing of charges therein. From perusal of FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is direct allegation of presence of accused at the residence of opposite party no.2 alongwith threat and abuse. Defence of accused cannot be seen at this stage, therefore, I found no illegality in submission of charge sheet under Sections 452, 504 & 506 IPC as well as framing of charges therein.”

What also cannot be glossed over is that the Bench points out in para 36 that, “Again, Apex Court in the matter of Captain Manjit Singh (Supra) reiterated the same view and relevant paragraph of the same is quoted hereinbelow;

11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused person. Interference of this Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reason to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.”  

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench then minces just no words absolutely to mandate in para 37 that, “Now coming to this case. It is apparently clear that while deciding the discharge application trial Court has not followed the settled ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court. In fact, Court blindly relying upon the charge sheet submitted by I.O. rejected the discharge application and framed charges thereafter. As discussed hereinabove, treating the allegation in FIR as well as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is correct, no case is made out under Sections 386 & 389 IPC, but trial Court functioning like a post office accepted the charge sheet and treating the version true, rejected the discharge application. Thereafter proceeded to frame charges also in the same sections. In fact, approach of trial Court suffers non application of judicial view settled by the Apex Court as well as different Courts. In a very casual manner vide impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 & 22.2.2023 discharge application has been rejected and charges have been framed, which cannot be sustained.”

As a corollary, the Bench then holds aptly in para 38 that, “Therefore, in light of factual and legal discussions made hereinabove, application is partly allowed. Impugned orders dated 23.11.2022 & 22.2.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras so far it relates to rejection of discharge application for Section 386 & 389 IPC as well as framing charges under Section 386 & 389 IPC are hereby quashed.”

What’s more, the Bench then directs in para 39 that, “For remaining sections i.e., Sections 452, 504, 506 & 507 IPC, this Court found no illegality in rejecting the discharge application and framing charges. Further, court is directed to proceed to decide the case strictly in accordance with law.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 40 that, “No order as to costs.”

All in all, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear in this notable judgment that a court cannot reject a discharge application by blindly relying upon the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is high time and all the Trial Court Judges must definitely pay heed to what the Allahabad High Court has held so clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case. No denying or disputing it!

Share this News